AOPA advocates in-flight mobile phone use

[Eric Greenwell]

A recent article highlights the AOPA's advocacy of in-flight cell phone use:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070426fcc.html

It references this March 2005 article,

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050328cell.html

which states in part:

> Despite the concern in some quarters that cell phones might cause
> interference with aircraft radios and navigation equipment, the FAA
> has never prohibited their use for aircraft operating under VFR. The
> aviation agency always has given pilots the final authority on what
> portable electronic devices could be used in the flight. And AOPA
> talked with several major cell phone service providers and found no
> restrictions on using their services in GA cockpits.

So, the FAA doesn't care if we use mobile phones in our gliders, and the
networks don't mind if we use mobile phones in our gliders, and with a
complete lack of reported problems from doing so, I'd like to suggest
using a mobile phone in a glider doesn't produce any victims. I further
suggest if safety or your spouses peace of mind is a stake, you can make
a call on your mobile without guilt.

Perhaps our discussions about in-flight use of mobile phones should
shift to why the FCC is so far behind the users and providers of mobile
phones.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Ray Lovinggood]

The few times I've even thought about using my cell
phone while in the glider, I never could get a signal.

I was always flying over populated areas where, on
the ground, I usually get good signal coverage.

My service provider is Alltel. Is my lack of signal
in the air due to the phone I have, the service provider,
the cell phone tower locations and orientation?

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA


At 02:42 28 April 2007, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>A recent article highlights the AOPA's advocacy of
>in-flight cell phone use:
>
>http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070426fcc.html
>
>It references this March 2005 article,
>
>http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050328cell.html
>
>which states in part:
>
>> Despite the concern in some quarters that cell phones
>>might cause
>> interference with aircraft radios and navigation equipment,
>>the FAA
>> has never prohibited their use for aircraft operating
>>under VFR. The
>> aviation agency always has given pilots the final
>>authority on what
>> portable electronic devices could be used in the flight.
>>And AOPA
>> talked with several major cell phone service providers
>>and found no
>> restrictions on using their services in GA cockpits.
>
>So, the FAA doesn't care if we use mobile phones in
>our gliders, and the
>networks don't mind if we use mobile phones in our
>gliders, and with a
>complete lack of reported problems from doing so, I'd
>like to suggest
>using a mobile phone in a glider doesn't produce any
>victims. I further
>suggest if safety or your spouses peace of mind is
>a stake, you can make
>a call on your mobile without guilt.
>
>Perhaps our discussions about in-flight use of mobile
>phones should
>shift to why the FCC is so far behind the users and
>providers of mobile
>phones.
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>* Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>* 'Transponders in Sailplanes' http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
>* 'A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation' at
>www.motorglider.org
>

[dwrobel[_2_]]

Twice in the last couple of years, while flying local flights in the
glider, I have receieve cell phone calls from pilots that had landed
out during their cross country flights. They were far enough away
that they could not make radio contact with me but could get cell
coverage. Both times I was at between 10k and 12k MSL. I chose
Verizon as my service provider for the reason that they seem to have
the best coverage away from populated areas i.e. in the mountains and
in the desert, at least in Utah. I don't think I have as good of
coverage in the air as on the ground because my battery drains faster
in the air, probably because it is searching for a signal.

Dan Wrobel
Logan, Utah

[Eric Greenwell]

Ray Lovinggood wrote:
> The few times I've even thought about using my cell
> phone while in the glider, I never could get a signal.
>
> I was always flying over populated areas where, on
> the ground, I usually get good signal coverage.
>
> My service provider is Alltel. Is my lack of signal
> in the air due to the phone I have, the service provider,
> the cell phone tower locations and orientation?

Your experience is a common one for the pilots I know. The phone and
provider are factors, but I think the biggest factor is population
density: the bigger it is, the smaller the cells. My explanation is
smaller cells means lower power for each cell and each cell uses a more
"focused" antenna, both of which means the signal stays closer to the
ground. In rural areas, the cells are bigger, power is higher, the
antennas are less focused, and the signal goes higher.

Asking other pilots about their experience might lead you to a better
combination of provider and phone. I don't know of any better way to
determine what's likely to work the best.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[COLIN LAMB]

Eric hit it right on the button - about focusing. Gain is attained at the
expense of directivity. The more gain, the further the signal transmits and
receives and the less power required. Assuming the cell tower is at the
same terrain height (or slightly higher), it will try to concentrate all of
the power along the horizon. Any signal going upwards will mean less signal
where people need it.

If the antenna is designed correctly, your signal will decrease as your
angle above the horizon increases. Directly above the cell tower would
likely have a total null. That means that at altitude you will likely have
the strongest signal from the cell tower furthest away - because it is the
lower angle.

Vhf omni-directional antennas have much less gain and directivity, so it is
much less of a problem on the aircraft frequencies - but still can be an
issue if you are directly over the station on the ground. I have seen
repeater antennas on mountain tops near the town they want to cover actually
invert the ground plane to provide better penetration into the town below.

Colin

[Forest Baskett]

As I understand it, each base station is tracking the
cell phones it can hear and is alert for a hand-off.
So the more base stations that a cell phone can be
heard by, the more load on the network. Thus a cell
phone in the air may put more load on the network than
one on the ground. I don't know how significant this
load is.

As per the example of the mountain top repeater, I
think that different base stations use different types
of antennas depending on the surrounding terrain they
are trying to cover. In flat areas the antennas have
very horizontal propagation characteristics. You can
see that if you watch your signal strength as you take
off as a passenger from a flat terrain airport. It
disappears after one or two thousand feet. But if
you are flying over rougher terrain, say Telluride,
the signal strength will be fine at 13,000 feet directly
over the town or many miles from it, for example.

Forest

At 15:12 28 April 2007, Colin Lamb wrote:
>Eric hit it right on the button - about focusing.
>Gain is attained at the
>expense of directivity. The more gain, the further
>the signal transmits and
>receives and the less power required. Assuming the
>cell tower is at the
>same terrain height (or slightly higher), it will try
>to concentrate all of
>the power along the horizon. Any signal going upwards
>will mean less signal
>where people need it.
>
>If the antenna is designed correctly, your signal will
>decrease as your
>angle above the horizon increases. Directly above
>the cell tower would
>likely have a total null. That means that at altitude
>you will likely have
>the strongest signal from the cell tower furthest away
>- because it is the
>lower angle.
>
>Vhf omni-directional antennas have much less gain and
>directivity, so it is
>much less of a problem on the aircraft frequencies
>- but still can be an
>issue if you are directly over the station on the ground.
> I have seen
>repeater antennas on mountain tops near the town they
>want to cover actually
>invert the ground plane to provide better penetration
>into the town below.
>
>Colin
>
>
>

[Mike Schumann]

I suspect that the antennas used by the providers have very limited vertical
beam width. I have T-Mobile service, which is quite good in most areas.
However, I didn't have service on the observation deck of the Empire State
Building in New York last year.

Mike Schumann

"Ray Lovinggood" > wrote in
message ...
> The few times I've even thought about using my cell
> phone while in the glider, I never could get a signal.
>
> I was always flying over populated areas where, on
> the ground, I usually get good signal coverage.
>
> My service provider is Alltel. Is my lack of signal
> in the air due to the phone I have, the service provider,
> the cell phone tower locations and orientation?
>
> Ray Lovinggood
> Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
>
>
> At 02:42 28 April 2007, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>A recent article highlights the AOPA's advocacy of
>>in-flight cell phone use:
>>
>>http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070426fcc.html
>>
>>It references this March 2005 article,
>>
>>http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050328cell.html
>>
>>which states in part:
>>
>>> Despite the concern in some quarters that cell phones
>>>might cause
>>> interference with aircraft radios and navigation equipment,
>>>the FAA
>>> has never prohibited their use for aircraft operating
>>>under VFR. The
>>> aviation agency always has given pilots the final
>>>authority on what
>>> portable electronic devices could be used in the flight.
>>>And AOPA
>>> talked with several major cell phone service providers
>>>and found no
>>> restrictions on using their services in GA cockpits.
>>
>>So, the FAA doesn't care if we use mobile phones in
>>our gliders, and the
>>networks don't mind if we use mobile phones in our
>>gliders, and with a
>>complete lack of reported problems from doing so, I'd
>>like to suggest
>>using a mobile phone in a glider doesn't produce any
>>victims. I further
>>suggest if safety or your spouses peace of mind is
>>a stake, you can make
>>a call on your mobile without guilt.
>>
>>Perhaps our discussions about in-flight use of mobile
>>phones should
>>shift to why the FCC is so far behind the users and
>>providers of mobile
>>phones.
>>
>>--
>>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>>* Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>>* 'Transponders in Sailplanes' http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
>>* 'A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation' at
>>www.motorglider.org
>>
>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[kirk.stant]

Oh, great, now we'll have all those bugsmasher pilots talking on their
cells while flying VFR - forget about visual lookout anymore!

It's already been documented that driving a car while talking on a
cell is more dangerous that driving with a .08 blood alcohol level.
But I guess AOPA thinks pilots are different...

Turn the damn thing off until you need it!

Kirk

[Eric Greenwell]

kirk.stant wrote:
> Oh, great, now we'll have all those bugsmasher pilots talking on their
> cells while flying VFR - forget about visual lookout anymore!

Newsflash! The bug smashers are already doing it, and visual lookout is
surely suffering in a few cases. It's not clear that most of these
pilots were doing a lot of looking out before they turned on their cell
phones, however, so safety may not be affected much!

>
> It's already been documented that driving a car while talking on a
> cell is more dangerous that driving with a .08 blood alcohol level.
> But I guess AOPA thinks pilots are different...

I haven't read AOPA's position any further than the two short articles I
referenced, so I can't speak for them; however, even if the pilots might
not be any different, the situation certainly is. Flying an airplane
simply does not involve the close attention driving a car does, except
close to airports, so I don't think we can apply studies done for
driving to flying.

>
> Turn the damn thing off until you need it!

Still good advice, except "need" means very different things to
different people. I suggest "you need it" should mean "safety will be
enhanced". Besides the obvious things like dealing with a radio failure,
I include calling my wife to make a position report if I can't get the
information to her by radio.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Jim Vincent]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:5_oZh.4359$r77.1770@trndny08...
> kirk.stant wrote:
>> Oh, great, now we'll have all those bugsmasher pilots talking on their
>> cells while flying VFR - forget about visual lookout anymore!
>
> Newsflash! The bug smashers are already doing it, and visual lookout is
> surely suffering in a few cases. It's not clear that most of these pilots
> were doing a lot of looking out before they turned on their cell phones,
> however, so safety may not be affected much!
>
I got Sporty's DVD on VFR commuication. It is a real world video of three
pilots communicating while flying VFR. Their VFR scan was to glance up
quickly perhaps once or twice...pretty scary.

[Jack]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Flying an airplane simply does not involve the close attention
> driving a car does, except close to airports, so I don't think
> we can apply studies done for driving to flying.


One is so frequently near an airport of some kind, in so much of the
country, that I can hardly believe you really mean that.

Above FL 180 it is true there is less watchfulness required under
most circumstances. Below that the average pilot simply is unaware
how MUCH traffic there is which he simply does not see. At the
altitudes flown by most sailplanes there is plenty of traffic about
which to be concerned, very little effective watchfulness on the
part of most light-plane pilots, and an almost complete lack of
understanding of the threat of sailplane traffic among your average
light-plane driver.

The Big Sky concept is responsible for an awful lot of ignorance,
and plain dumb luck. Darwin would otherwise have cleared out those
who just don't get it a long time ago. Have we forgotten already
about the biz jet/glider midair from last season?


Jack

[Eric Greenwell]

Jack wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> > Flying an airplane simply does not involve the close attention
> > driving a car does, except close to airports, so I don't think
> > we can apply studies done for driving to flying.
>
>
> One is so frequently near an airport of some kind, in so much of the
> country, that I can hardly believe you really mean that.

"Near" an airport is not well defined, and I know the traffic density
varies hugely depending where you are. That's the real factor, of
course. In the Western US away from the coast, where I do most of my
flying, getting more than 5 miles from an untowered airport starts to
get lonely.

But what I meant was you can close your eyes for, say, 30 seconds while
you are flying an airplane, and nothing bad happens. Try that in a car.
Put the airplane on auto pilot, and you don't even have to worry about
staying level. With a transponder, flight following, maybe a TPAS unit,
to do your "scanning", all you have to worry about (mostly) is gliders
and ultralights. It's a very different situation from driving a car, and
that's why I don't think we can apply the "distraction while driving"
studies to flying.

>
> Above FL 180 it is true there is less watchfulness required under most
> circumstances. Below that the average pilot simply is unaware how MUCH
> traffic there is which he simply does not see.

I agree completely, and I now advocate pilots getting a Zaon MRX or
similar TPAS/PCAS unit so they become aware of this traffic.

> At the altitudes flown by
> most sailplanes there is plenty of traffic about which to be concerned,

I'm not sure that this true of "most" sailplanes, because the amount of
traffic depends very much on where you are, not just the altidue. I can
fly for hundreds of miles in Eastern Washington state and not see an
airplane or have my MRX detect anything. If "there is plenty of traffic
about which to be concerned", and assuming it's airplane traffic you
mean, I recommend the pilot get a transponder.

> very little effective watchfulness on the part of most light-plane
> pilots, and an almost complete lack of understanding of the threat of
> sailplane traffic among your average light-plane driver.

Yes, and yes.

>
> The Big Sky concept is responsible for an awful lot of ignorance, and
> plain dumb luck. Darwin would otherwise have cleared out those who just
> don't get it a long time ago. Have we forgotten already about the biz
> jet/glider midair from last season?

I very much doubt it. "Mistakes were made" in that case, and we all hope
other pilots in similar circumstances will not compound these mistakes
by using their mobile phone.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org